Jharkhand High Court
Dhananjay Kumar Mehta vs Savitri Devi on 30 July, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
(2025:JHHC:20956)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 384 of 2025
Dhananjay Kumar Mehta, aged about 38 years, s/o Ram Swarup Mehta, R/o
Village-Imamnagar, Barewa, P.O.-Haidarnagar, P.O. & P.S. Haidarnagar,
District-Palamau, Jharkhand ... Petitioner
-Versus-
Savitri Devi, w/o Dhananjay Kumar Mehta, R/o Village-Sudna, PO &PS-
Daltonganj, District-Palamau, State Jharkhand
... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Baban Prasad, Advocate
-----
06/30.07.2025 Heard Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Baban Prasad, learned counsel for the sole opposite party.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India for setting-aside the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamau at Daltonganj in Original Suit No. 172
of 2023, whereby, the learned Court has been pleased to allow the petition
dated 06.08.2024 filed under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act of the opposite
party and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the opposite party-
wife as litigation cost and further directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month as
maintenance for the opposite party and her two minor children till the disposal
of the main case.
3. Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner-husband has instituted the Original Suit No.172 of 2023
against the opposite party-wife under section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty, praying therein to dissolve the marriage
by a decree of divorce and to grant the cost of the suit or for any other relief
or reliefs. He submits that the Original Suit is pending for evidence of the
-1- C.M.P. No. 384 of 2025
(2025:JHHC:20956)
petitioner and the sole opposite party has also appeared and filed her written
statement. He further submits that a petition was filed by the opposite party
on 06.08.2024 under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with a prayer of
Rs. 10,000/- per month litigation cost and Rs.60,000/- per month
maintenance cost for her and her children during pendency of the original
Suit. He then submits that the petitioner has filed reply to the said petition
filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He submits that prior to the
petition filed under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act before the learned Court,
one Original Maintenance Case No. 31 of 2016 was filed by the opposite party-
wife under section 125 of Cr. P.C against the petitioner-husband, which has
been allowed by the learned Court vide order dated 18.05.2018 with direction
to pay maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the opposite party and Rs.
1000/- per month to her two children each from the date of filing of
application of maintenance case. He also submits that in the light of said
direction, the petitioner is already paying sum of Rs. 4000/- per month to the
wife. He further submits that by the impugned order dated 21.01.2025, the
learned Court has directed the petitioner-husband to pay sum of Rs.20,000/-
to the opposite party-wife as litigation cost and further directed to pay Rs.
15,000/- per month as maintenance for the opposite party and her two minor
children till the disposal of the case. He submits that the learned Court has
not taken into consideration the fact that already a sum of Rs. 4000/- is being
paid by the petitioner-husband to the opposite party-wife pursuant to the
order passed under section 125 of Cr.P.C. He further submits that the
maintenance cannot be allowed under two provisions and only one provision
for grant of maintenance will prevail. To buttress this argument, he relied
-2- C.M.P. No. 384 of 2025
(2025:JHHC:20956)
upon the judgments passed in the cases of Sangeeta Kumari v. The State
of Jharkhand and another, reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Jhar 3046,
Sudeep Chaudhary v. Radha Chaudhary, reported in (1997) 11 SCC
286 and in the case of Sandhya Kumari v. The State of Bihar and
another, reported in 2000 SCC OnLine Pat 140. Relying on the above
judgments, he submits that the learned Court has not directed to adjust the
amount of Rs. 4000/- in the petition allowed under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act. In view of that, he submits that the learned Court has erred in
passing the said order. On these grounds, he submits that proper order may
kindly be passed with regard to the impugned order.
4. Mr. Baban Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole
opposite party has not disputed the fact that earlier the petition filed by the
wife under Section 125 Cr. P.C. was allowed by the learned Court vide order
dated 18.05.2018. Subsequently, a petition under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act was preferred later on, which has been allowed by the learned
Court by the impugned order. He submits that the learned Court has rightly
passed the impugned order. The learned Court has taken into consideration
that a sum of Rs. 4,000/- is being paid by the petitioner-husband to the sole
opposite party-wife pursuant to the order passed by the learned Court under
Section 125 Cr. P.C. He further submits that the opposite party is entitled to
invoke either of the statute for maintenance and she has rightly done so. He
submits that this aspect of the matter has been set at rest in light of the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v.
Neha and another, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. Relying on the above
judgment, he submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and,
-3- C.M.P. No. 384 of 2025
(2025:JHHC:20956)
as such, and this petition may kindly be dismissed.
5. It is an admitted position that the petitioner and sole opposite party
are husband and wife and their marriage has been solemnized and due to
dispute between the parties, the petitioner-husband has instituted the
Original Suit No.172 of 2023 against the opposite party-wife under Section
13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned Court for divorce.
The opposite party-wife has preferred an application under section 125 of
Cr.P.C against the petitioner, which has been allowed by the learned Court by
order dated 18.05.2018 with direction to pay maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per
month to the opposite party and Rs. 1,000/- per month to her two children
each from the date of filing of application of maintenance case till disposal of
the main case and it has not been denied in course of the arguments by the
learned counsel for the opposite party that the amount has not been paid by
the petitioner. Subsequently, the impugned order has been passed by which
the learned Court has been pleased to direct the petitioner to pay Rs. 20,000/-
to the opposite party-wife as litigation cost and further directed to pay Rs.
15,000/- per month as maintenance for the opposite party and her two minor
children till the disposal of the main case.
6. The Court finds that by the impugned order, the learned Court has
referred about earlier proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and payment
being made, however, the learned Court has not directed to adjust that
amount in the amount further directed to be paid by the petitioner.
7. The point in question has already been set at rest in light of the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on which, reliance has been placed
by the learned counsel for the sole opposite party i.e. Rajnesh v. Neha and
-4- C.M.P. No. 384 of 2025
(2025:JHHC:20956)
another (supra), wherein, at paragraph nos. 54, 60 and 128, it has been
held as under:
“54. On the other hand, the Bombay and Delhi High Courts,
have held that in case of parallel proceedings, adjustment or
set-off must take place. The Bombay High Court in a well-
reasoned judgment delivered in (Vishal v Aparna, 2018 SCC
OnLine Bom 1207) has taken the correct view. The Court was
considering the issue whether interim monthly maintenance
awarded under Section 23 read with Section 20(1)(d) of the
DV Act could be adjusted against the maintenance awarded
under Section 125 CrPC. The Family Court held that the order
passed under the DV Act and the CrPC were both
independent proceedings, and adjustment was not
permissible. The Bombay High Court set aside the judgment
of the Family Court, and held that Section 20(1)(d) of the DV
Act makes it clear that the maintenance granted under this
Act, would be in addition to an order of maintenance under
Section 125 CrPC, and any other law for the time being in
force. Sub-section (3) of Section 26 of the DV Act enjoins
upon the aggrieved person to inform the Magistrate, if she
has obtained any relief available under Sections 18, 19, 20,
21 and 22, in any other legal proceeding filed by her, whether
before a civil court, Family Court, or criminal court. The object
being that while granting relief under the DV Act, the
Magistrate shall take into account and consider if any similar
relief has been obtained by the aggrieved person. Even
though proceedings under the DV Act may be an independent
proceeding, the Magistrate cannot ignore the maintenance
awarded in any other legal proceedings, while determining
whether over and above the maintenance already awarded,
any further amount was required to be granted for reasons
to be recorded in writing. The Court observed : (Vishal
case [Vishal v. Aparna, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1207] , SCC
OnLine Bom para 18)
“18. What I intend to emphasise is the fact that the
adjustment is permissible and the adjustment can be
allowed of the lower amount against the higher
amount. Though the wife can simultaneously claim
maintenance under the different enactments, it does
not in any way mean that the husband can be made
liable to pay the maintenance awarded in each of the
said proceedings.”
(emphasis supplied)
It was held that while determining the quantum of
maintenance awarded under Section 125 CrPC, the
Magistrate would take into consideration the interim
maintenance awarded to the aggrieved woman under the DV
Act.
60. It is well settled that a wife can make a claim for
maintenance under different statutes. For instance, there is
no bar to seek maintenance both under the DV Act and
-5- C.M.P. No. 384 of 2025
(2025:JHHC:20956)
Section 125 CrPC, or under HMA. It would, however, be
inequitable to direct the husband to pay maintenance under
each of the proceedings, independent of the relief granted in
a previous proceeding. If maintenance is awarded to the wife
in a previously instituted proceeding, she is under a legal
obligation to disclose the same in a subsequent proceeding
for maintenance, which may be filed under another
enactment. While deciding the quantum of maintenance in
the subsequent proceeding, the civil court/Family Court shall
take into account the maintenance awarded in any previously
instituted proceeding, and determine the maintenance
payable to the claimant.
128. To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction,
and avoid conflicting orders being passed in different
proceedings, it has become necessary to issue directions in
this regard, so that there is uniformity in the practice followed
by the Family Courts/District Courts/Magistrate Courts
throughout the country. We direct that:
128.1. (i) Where successive claims for maintenance are
made by a party under different statutes, the court would
consider an adjustment or set-off, of the amount awarded in
the previous proceeding(s), while determining whether any
further amount is to be awarded in the subsequent
proceeding.
128.2. (ii) It is made mandatory for the applicant to
disclose the previous proceeding and the orders passed
therein, in the subsequent proceeding.
128.3. (iii) If the order passed in the previous proceeding(s)
requires any modification or variation, it would be required to
be done in the same proceeding.”
8. From the above, it is crystal clear that the Court is required to take into
consideration the maintenance already awarded in the previous proceeding
and grant an adjustment or set-off of the said amount and that has not been
done by the learned trial court.
9. There is no doubt that a petition under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act is a temporary order and not a final determination of the exact
quantum to which the wife would be entitled as of right towards her
maintenance allowance or on the ground that the learned Magistrate’s
jurisdiction to grant maintenance allowance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
remains unaffected by the order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
it would virtually mean saddling the husband-petitioner with a liability to
-6- C.M.P. No. 384 of 2025
(2025:JHHC:20956)
comply with both the orders and make the double payment of maintenance
allowance, irrespective of the question other actual requirements of her
maintenance.
10. This Court is afraid that such a course would not be in consonance with
the fundamental concept of justice, equity and good conscience. The order
under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act may be temporary and not a final
determination and it is true that if an order for permanent alimony is made
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., it will automatically supersede the alimony
pendente lite. But, if the amount of maintenance pendente lite is discernible
from the order under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act and if the said amount
is paid by the husband, there is no reason for disallowing adjustment of such
payments against the amount awarded under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., even if
the latter amount is quite sufficient for the wife’s maintenance. If such
payment is temporary, the adjustment will also be temporary and it will
continue to be made as long as the payment would be made. The mere fact
that the order under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act is temporary cannot
thus constitute a good ground for making claim for adjustment inadmissible
if it is otherwise admissible for the purpose. Adjustment however cannot be
allowed as a matter of course. Whether such a plea would be admissible
would depend upon facts and circumstances of each particular case.
11. In light of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the Court is inclined
to hold that the amount paid by the petitioner-husband to the opposite party-
wife towards her maintenance in pursuance of the order passed by the
Matrimonial Court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is liable to be
adjusted against the amount payable under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. towards
-7- C.M.P. No. 384 of 2025
(2025:JHHC:20956)
her maintenance.
12. In view of the above facts, the impugned order is liable to be made
subject to the modification to the effect that the amount paid as alimony
pendente lite in the matrimonial suit by the petitioner-husband to the
opposite party-wife be adjusted against the maintenance payable under the
impugned order.
13. It is made clear that this Court has not modified the awarded amount
under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act passed by the learned Court and
only adjustment of the amount under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is clarified. The
impugned order dated 21.01.2025 is modified to the above effect.
14. The petitioner-husband will go on paying the amount to the opposite
party-wife in light of the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamau at Daltonganj in Original Suit No.172
of 2023.
15. In view of the above, the petitioner is not required to pay further
amount in terms of the order passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
16. In light of the above, this petition is disposed of.
17. Pending petition, if any, is also disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/ Abha A.F.R.
-8- C.M.P. No. 384 of 2025